A Haunting In Canada

Posted on September 27, 2023 by thezman

“There is a specter haunting the West, the specter of fascism” could be the opening line to a manifesto from just about any group in the modern West. Three generations after fascism ceased to exist as a real political and intellectual movement, it hangs over the Western mind like a terrifying fog. Every issue in the political debate is there because it relates to fascism in some way. It either defines who is and who is not a fascist, or it is assumed to be a precursor to fascism.

In every political debate, the people we continue to call conservatives are defined by their fear of being called fascists or an equivalent label. Racism, for example, is nothing more than a crude synonym for fascism. The people we call the Left have a deep sack full of terms that essentially mean fascist. If they call you an extreme right-wing extremist, they really mean you are a fascist. Of course, fascist now simply means “outside the moral consensus” as defined by the Left.

It is not just a rhetorical game. Western liberalism is now just a reactionary, but still revolutionary, cause that has evolved around fear of fascism. All of the weird cultural fads are driven mostly by a desire to strike out at the people the culture warriors assume to be fascists. These are the white people who are trying to live normal lives in middle-class suburbs. Woke is not for anything. It is against fascism and all of its manifestations, which can be anything.

Eric Hoffer famously wrote that “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.” This is clear when you look at what has happened to Western liberalism. Long stripped of its Christian moral foundation, it staggers on in opposition to one devil after another. The devil can take many forms but strip away the covering and what lies beneath is always an Austrian painter in the imagination of the Western mind.

This is a purely negative identity. Western liberalism no longer has an internal, independent definition for itself. Those concepts still linger in the past, occasionally referenced by the people we continue to call conservatives, but only as a way of trying to slither out from under the boulder labeled “fascism” that has been hurled at them by the people we call the Left. Both sides agree that everything they do not like is Hitler and Hitler is their forever enemy.

You see it in the recent scandal in Canada where all the best people were seen cheering a guy who turned out to be a former Nazi. Yaroslav Hunka, who is 98, got a standing ovation after House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota called him a hero during a Friday visit by Zelensky. Rota called him a hero because he was told that Hunka fought the Soviets in the war. Since Western liberals now think Putin is Hitler, Russians are Nazis, so Hunka must be a hero.

The haunting of the Western mind by the specter of fascism is right there in that ridiculous performance. Because Putin is Hitler, it means Russia is the new Third Reich, which makes Ukraine the symbol of the West. Zelensky has been transformed into Churchill, but not the drunken degenerate version. He is the lion of the West version who rallied the forces of good against fascism. To the dullards who put the event together, Hunka connected the present to the past.

In reality, Hunka was and remains a Banderan, a follower of Stepan Bandera, who was a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist in the middle of the last century. Bandera collaborated with the Nazis because he hated Russians. Ukrainian nationalism is and remains, like Western liberalism, a negative identity. It is haunted by fascism because they see fascism as the great enemy of Russia, which they hate as much as the Western liberal thinks he hates fascism.

Of course, the question is how did this Ukrainian fascist end up in Canada after the war and remain undetected? He is wanted by Poland for war crimes. It turns out that the West welcomed a lot of these guys after the war. John Demjanjuk was a famous example from the 1980’s. He was the center of a moral panic, mostly over the prospect of running out of real Nazis due to the actuarial tables. All the best people turned up to point their bony fingers at Demjanjuk.

That gets to the reality of fascism and why it haunts the West. Fascism is impossible to define, in part, because it is the universal bogeyman. Both communists and liberals have spent generations heaping every sin imaginable on fascism. Those sins, of course, are the things these ideological camps fear most about themselves. With communism in the ash heap of history, fascism is now just the warted, gnarled face of Western liberalism’s worst fears about itself.

Another reason fascism is impossible to define is it was never really a standalone ideology, but a reaction to ideology. Fascism would never have existed if not for the apparent failure of liberalism and the very real threat of communism, especially the Bolshevik variety. Fascism was an ad hoc defense against cultural and spiritual genocide by people who saw both Western liberalism and communism in their raw form as they evolved in the 19th century.

This is why modern liberalism looks strikingly like fascism. We live in an age where the lines between the state and capitalism are impossible to see. Corporate America and the apparatus of the state are two heads of the same hydra. The media, the academy and entertainment are the other heads. The body that controls them is managerialism, which looks a lot like fascism. If James Burnham were alive today, he would easily make the connection between the two.

For a long time, people have wondered what would happen when the last real Nazi or alleged victim of the Nazis is no more. In the next decade that whole generation will be gone, leaving no more devils for liberalism to chase. Similarly, people have wondered what comes after liberalism reaches its end point. Both questions seem to have the same answer in that one cannot live without the other. When both are gone, the long nightmare of the West will finally come to an end.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at

sa***@mi*********************.com

.

Election Narrative Update

Posted on September 21, 2023 by thezman

Note: If you are looking for a way to do some good within the parameters of the system, then take a look at the Free Expression Foundation. This is what civil liberties groups are supposed to be doing, which is defending the rights of citizens. The organization is run by a stand-up guy who believes in the mission. They have volunteers, but fighting cases in court requires money, so consider a donation.

The next Republican debate is scheduled for this coming Thursday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley California. According to state media, the same cast of characters is expected to perform at this event, with the exception of Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum, who they forgot to invite. Why this is being held in California is a mystery, as there is no chance a Republican will every win the state. For all anyone knows or cares, there is no Republican Party in California.

Putting that aside, the pre-coverage of this debate shows us that the narrative for the 2024 election is running into serious trouble on the GOP side. The script said that at this point, Trump would be out of the race due to the indictments. The party would have swung behind one of the zombies to stop Ron DeSantis, who would be desperately swimming to the “middle” in order to maintain donor support. Instead, Trump now looms over the whole thing like Godzilla attacking Tokyo.

The main flaw in the narrative was assuming that Trump’s support would collapse after the string of indictments. Because the people behind this stuff are lizard people from an alien planet, they have no way to read public sentiment. They are left to imagine how humans would react under certain conditions. Apparently one of their texts on humans said that humans naturally flee when the bad guys attack their champion for the crime of fighting back against the bad guys.

Regime media is now floating stories like this one in which various toadies wonder why their great plan failed to work. One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is that these sorts of stories appear when the regime finally comes to realize that their current narrative is no longer operational. It is something like the stages of grief. They are now in the acceptance phase of narrative collapse. Next is the bargaining phase where they search for something positive from the situation.

Another problem with the narrative is that Ron DeSantis was not able to play his role as the acceptable alternative to Trump. You may hate Trump with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it does not change the fact that he is the best street fighter the Republican Party has seen since Lee Atwater. He saw right away that DeSantis was a stalking horse, so he unleashed his supporters on him. As a result DeSantis has been dying a death of a thousand cuts.

One part of the narrative has held together. The script called for the great zombie army that is Conservative Inc. to rally to the banner of an approved option. After some fits and starts, they have managed to get this right. The one thing that you can always count on is for conservatives to do what the Left tells them to do. Nikki Haley is now the regime option in the race. She has broken double digits in Iowa, which is probably her high water mark, but that will be enough to make her the favorite.

That is the reason to watch the Thursday debate. Since Neocon Nikki has been anointed as the regime favorite, it means DeSantis has to go after her in order to revive interest in his campaign. Given how poorly he has done to this point, it is a lock that he does not do this and instead attacks Ramaswamy again. For his part, the King Cobra should be ready for Neocon Nikki to use him as a foil. Expect him to arrive wearing garlic as that is how you keep the neocon at bay.

Ramaswamy has turned out to be an enormous problem for the regime as he is a black swan in this story. According to official dogma, it is impossible for a brown person with an elite education to sound like Trump. Not only does Ramaswamy sound like Trump, he makes better arguments than Trump and he is willing to stake out positions that Trump is afraid to take, which are popular with normal people. They do not know what to do with him, so they will fling their poo at him.

Of course, they are falling for one of the classic blunders. The most famous is to never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this; never get involved in a poo flinging contest with an Indian. Ramaswamy has figured out that the race issue is losing its effectiveness with voters. That and it strikes people as ridiculous to call him a white supremacist. This gives him room to be the explicitly pro-white candidate while not being white.

With the narrative collapsing, the question shifts to what is next. The polling shows Trump is locked in as the overwhelming favorite in the early contests. What we know from 2016 is that Trump always does better than the polls, so it is fair to assume he will win handily if nothing changes. The script calls for the removal of Trump from the ballot, for the good of the country, so they can always play that card. Otherwise, they have to craft a new narrative to prevent the apocalypse.

The natural fallback position would be to put a pillow of Biden’s face and find a younger more plausible option for the other side. Gavin Newsom was the obvious choice, but he has removed himself from consideration. Presumably they threatened to charge him with raping people decades ago. That leaves no one. Given Biden’s declining ability to speak in public, we could end up with a general election where Trump campaigns in front of huge rallies and Biden does not campaign at all.

The ultimate fallback position, of course, is a rerun of 2020. This time Biden will top his eighty million votes in Pennsylvania alone. They have gone to a system of automatic voting that lets you avoid the hassle of filling out your ballot. This is a great benefit to the dead, who find this to be a big challenge. All joking aside, the lesson of 2020 is they can rig the election and get away with it, so the ultimate solution to narrative collapse is not who votes but who counts the votes.

War With Russia

Posted on September 19, 2023 by thezman

Until recent, few people outside of the Kagan cult and the Pentagon thought about fighting a war with Russia. The former has thought of nothing but such a war since the Roman legions crossed the Alps, while the latter is tasked with wargaming every imaginable scenario, no matter how unlikely. Otherwise, war with Russia stopped being a concern with the end of the Cold War. The only wars anyone needed to think about were the wars against pipsqueak countries in the Middle East.

Of course, the West now finds itself in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine which could easily tip into a direct war. Former Vice President and current 2024 candidate Mike Pence is promoting the idea of sending American troops to Ukraine. Other than Trump and Ramaswamy, all of the candidates for 2024 want a hot war. The Kagan cult, which runs Biden’s Ukraine policy, is doing all it can to provoke the Russians into something they can use to trigger Article 5.

Assuming war happens, could the West actually win such a war? Until this year, no one thought about this question, outside of the Pentagon. The United States had the world’s best military by far. It has been assumed that a war with Russia would mean certain defeat for the Russian army. The real question was whether the United States could beat both Russia and China at the same time. After eighteen months of war, the answer to the question of war with Russia is not so simple.

For starters you have to deal with the nuclear issue. Russia has 6,257 nuclear warheads and the United States has 5,550. Both sides have more than enough to obliterate the other side. Given the performance of the Russian missile fleet in Ukraine, we can assume that their ICBM’s are in good working order. This means that any conflict that reached the nuclear level would end in both sides being reduced to a premodern state at best.

Both sides know this and both sides know the other side’s process for readying a nuclear launch. Both sides have short-range nukes, but the real county killers are the ICBM’s, so as long as both sides maintain current protocols, neither side would have a reason to pull the trigger on total nuclear war. That leaves some room for using tactical nukes on the battlefield without triggering the end of the world. In fact, both sides would assume all aircraft are nuclear capable.

This is the issue with putting F-16’s into Ukraine. The Russians would have to assume they are flown by NATO crews because they would have to be flown from NATO bases and use NATO communications networks. Further, the F-16 is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, so their appearance over Ukraine will be assumed by the Russians to be NATO seeking to deliver nuclear weapons to the battlefield. The Russians would then be allowed to do the same thing.

If we assume both sides understand the risks of nuclear weapons, a big assumption given the behavior of the Kagan cult, it is possible for NATO to send troops into Ukraine to directly confront the Russian army. Both sides managed many proxy wars and some direct wars with the other side’s proxies during the Cold War, so it is not unthinkable that they could have a direct war without it going nuclear. Both sides could see an advantage in agreeing to such terms.

If we put the nuclear issue to one side for now, we are back to that original question about beating the Russian army. What the last eighteen months has proven is that the Russian army is not the Iraqi army. Washington spent close to ten years training and equipping the Ukrainian army for this war. They have poured untold billions into Ukraine over the course of the war. The West has levied massive sanctions on Russia and yet it is becoming clear that the Russians are winning the war.

One reason for this is the way in which the American military wants to fight is not how this war is being fought. This is a land war between peer armies. NATO would run into the same problems that Ukraine has experienced. They would be sucked into a war of attrition that is conducted from entrenched positions. This is the lesson the US Army War College has drawn from the war. In this paper released last week, they explain some of the realities of a war with Russia in the Ukraine.

The first thing the authors note is the human cost to the American army would be nothing like it has ever experienced. According to their analysis, the United States would suffer more losses in two weeks than it has suffered in twenty years of war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. They estimate at least three thousand dead and wounded per day. Note they are using Ukraine as an example, which gives a hint as to the real losses Ukraine has suffered in this war.

They also note that NATO would quickly have to tap into its reserves, but this is a bit of a problem as those reserves do not exist. They estimate that NATO would need a reserve force of about 450-thousand men to start the war. The current number is less than 100-thousand men. Attrition war need lots of men, but modern armies need lots of trained men, so the West would need time to build their reserves. Of course, Russia has been doing this for over a year now.

Then you get into material factors. The West has run out of weapons to send to the Ukrainians after eighteen months of war. Granted, the United States still has lots of tanks and fighting vehicles in its inventory for use in a war with Russia, but the lesson so far is those stocks are not enough. Ukraine has burned through thousands of tanks and fighting vehicles. They have used millions of artillery rounds and lost hundreds of Western supplied artillery pieces.

This article in the New York Times gets to the heart of the issue. The economic sanctions have done nothing to limit Russia’s ability to wage this war. More important is the fact that Russian has a greater military industrial capacity than the West. She also has unused capacity that can be quickly converted to making weapons. Russia can make more of the stuff she needs to fight than the West can make, which means the West will have to ramp up production.

Therein lies the problem. There are no factories that can be quickly converted to military use like the Second World War. That means building new, but that also means massive new costs to the West. In that Times article it notes that it costs the West $5,000 to $6,000 to make a 155-millimeter artillery round, but it costs Russia about $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter artillery shell. Now apply this math to tanks, and fighting vehicles and you see the problem.

Obviously, war with Russia would mean the West would have to reorganize to fight a war of this scale, but is it possible? Would the populations tolerate the necessary changes to the economy and society? Reorganizing America for total war when most of the country hates the rest of the country is a tall order. Is such a scheme even possible in Europe? Even if we brush aside the internal problems, could the West manage to pull it off in time to avoid defeat?

Thirty years ago, Pat Buchanan ran for president, campaigning, in part, against the de-industrialization of America. One of his points was that nations win wars on their industrial capacity, not their service industry. The same people demanding war with Russia today were gleefully auctioning off the industrial base thirty years ago, telling the working men that they needed to flip burgers. Now that the warmongers need those working men, they are in China, not Pittsburgh.

This is the reality dawning on the world as the Global American Empire flounders in its war against Russia. The Global American Empire is now in decline and the rest of the world is seeing what the Army War College is trying to tell the ruling class. The empire no longer has the capacity to maintain the empire. This is why the endless bluffs from Washington now fall on deaf ears. The question now is not what happens in a war with Russia, but what happens after this war with Russia.

Politics After Principle

Posted on September 18, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a series of posts about my recent journey into the heart of darkness, which is a sad way of saying the future. If you want to see the future too, fly a discount airline to Baltimore or Atlanta. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

For as long as anyone can remember there have been two competing views of how to engage in politics against the people we call the Left. One camp says that opposition must come from a principled group that does not engage in the same tactics as the opponent, in order to provide an alternative to the Left. Their vision of politics is the means justifies the ends, in contrast with the Left, who takes the view that the ends justify the means, or any means necessary to win.

The other camp points out that the Left always wins, so the “principle above politics” business is pointless. The point of politics is to win, which means gaining power, so any strategy that lacks that as its goal is a waste of time. Further, this camp notes that the first principles crowd spends all of their time policing their ranks rather than fighting the Left, which means endless purges. The people being purged are usually the most effective fighters against the Left.

The critique of the “first principles” crowd is an easy one as they stand in front of an empty trophy case with pockets stuffed with cash. Individually they do very well in terms of salary and social status, but collectively they have managed to do so little with so much that it is easy to conclude that it is a long con. Billions of dollars have flowed into Conservative Inc., but they accomplish nothing. The two conservative wins, abortion, and guns, we accomplished by outsiders.

This should be an easy case. If the means justify the ends approach is an utter failure, then we are left with the ends justify the means approach. People on the right tend to favor “no enemies to the right” as a slogan, but fundamentally it is the same thing the Left has preached for generations. When the goal is winning, you do what you must in order to win, even align with low-character people. The point of politics is to gain power and once you gain power you can have principles.

There are a number of problems with this approach, specific to right-wing movements in the modern age. The first is the Boebert problem. For those unfamiliar, Lauren Boebert is a ditzy female congressman from Colorado, who was recently seen getting felt up by a man not her husband at a movie theater. The usual carbuncles of Conservative Inc. were quick to denounce Boebert, who they see as lacking principles. Her behavior violates their principles, so she has to go.

The dilemma for the “no enemies to the right” camp is that no decent man wants to defend this airhead. Whatever utility she has politically is cancelled out by the fact that she is a dingbat and an attention whore. Even remaining silent on her is tough because the absurdity of it makes for easy jokes. Can you expect people to not make Boebert jokes in the name of politics? Can you expect people to defend this ridiculous woman when lefty friends make fun of her?

That gets to the other problem for “no enemies to the right”. The bad guys control the media, so they control the popular narrative. That means they can hold their opponents to a high standard. In other words, they can make their opponents defend all of their members and alleged members. On the other hand, any attacks on their members can simply be ignored. If you are in the game of winning the crowd against the Left, you have to accept this asymmetry.

Dingbats like Boebert are the easy problems. The really tough problem for the “no enemies to the right” camp are guys like Russell Brand and Andrew Tate. The former is a far-left comic turned populist gadfly and the latter is a pimp and pornographer, who attacks the feminist industrial complex. Both have big audiences and often voice positions popular on the dissident right. Tucker Carlson has been seen paling around with them and promoting them to his fans.

Coincidentally, both have been accused by the authorities of rape. Tate was arrested in Romania on sex trafficking claims. He admits to being a pimp and pornographer but claims to operate within the law. Brand has just been accused of being a serial rapist decades ago. He denies the claims. The usual carbuncles of Conservative Inc. were quick to accept the claims at face value and denounce Brand. Their instinct is to always trust the people they claim to oppose.

The trouble here for the “no enemies to the right” side is that both Brand and Tate are horrible people, even if you exclude the claims against them. Tate brags about things that will get him hanged if the Right is ever in charge. If there is a revolution from the Right, Andrew Tate will not live to see its second day. Russel Brand is a sociopath who will attack anyone to get attention. Not so long ago he was happy to attack the enemies of Left if it made him famous.

How can the “no enemies to the right” side defend Russell Brand when it is clear he would savage them if he saw a profit in it? How can they defend Andrew Tate when he should be swinging from a tree branch? The answer is two-fold. The first part is that while all politics is personal, it is also situational. The Brand case offers an opportunity to focus on the abuse of the law against political opponents. It is not about the odious Russell brand, but the grotesque abuse of the legal system.

In this way the “no enemies to the right” side can wear the clothes of the “principled conservatives” to both undermine their claims by holding them to their own standards and attack the behavior of the Left. This leads to the second part which is that a part of dissident politics is reminding dissidents that the point of politics is to win and gain power, not be the most high-minded loser. Sometimes winning means defending people like Russell Brand in order to damage the enemy.

The lesson here in all of this, especially for the “no enemies to the right” side who are new to dissident politics, is that principles of any kind assume a common end. This is why conservatism was a failure. They assumed the other side wanted what they wanted, but through different means. This was never true outside of the neocons who never relinquished their radical ends. In a world of conflicting moral visions, there is no place for the principled stand.

Carl Schmitt wrote, “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” In other words, the question central to politics is who is on my side and who is not on my side. There is nothing about the answer that should imply eternity. If Russel Brand is a useful ally, then he is a useful ally. When he stops being a useful ally, then he stops being a useful ally. In politics, allies are a bus you ride to the next stop.

The Natural Solution

Posted on September 14, 2023 by thezman

What is the purpose of your life? How should a man live his life? How should we organize our societies and to what end? These are the questions that have vexed mankind for an awfully long time. In the modern age, we are enveloped in messaging about these questions. It seems that every ad is really a lecture about how you should live or how we should organize our societies to some end. This ad from a well-known toy company is a perfect example.

The liberal project, dating from the late Middle Ages to the current year, is about using reason to answer these questions. It is assumed that every life has a purpose and that there is a correct way to organize society. No one accepts that the purpose of the meth addict’s life is to be a meth addict and die on the street. Similarly, no one wants to accept that the best way to organize society is however you like. In other words, there is a right answer to these questions, not just an answer.

This is why thinking about how humans actually live is such a dangerous topic to those with an interest in such things. If you notice that one group of people behaves in a different way compared to other groups, then the right people may get the wrong idea about your commitment to the grand project. If you suggest that who we are is not something we can do much about because it is written in our genetic code, then it suggests the whole project is a waste of time.

This is why we see people in the human science take time from doing what they like to let the right people know that they do not have the wrong idea about things. This post from Gregory Clark professing to be a communist is one example. No one should care about his opinions on economics. He is not an economist or a politician. He is a historian known for tracing the heritability of social success. His book The Son Also Rises suggests genes play a large role in life outcomes.

Mr. Clark may have some interesting things to say about economics or economic policy, but no one who makes economic policy will ever read his book. That is not how economic policy gets made in the modern world. The point of his post and other public statements is to let everyone know he is not going to be any trouble when it comes to those big questions at the heart of Western society. This a ritual that academics must perform if they dare look at how man actually lives.

The irony, of course, is that if you are the sort of person who studies surnames as a proxy for genes in order to see if there is a correlation between genes and life outcomes, you probably know the answers to those questions. Further, your research just happens to confirm the answer. Even more ironic, the people who worry about the implications of such things are not fooled by the public ritual. There is something rather primitive about how these high-minded people act.

Putting all that aside, what lies at the heart of the great terror that has swept the academy and now society in general is the assumption that observations about human beings and their nature will answer those questions. If we notice that not all people are blessed with the same talents, it will tell us something about the purpose of our lives and how we ought to organize our societies. The people in that Apple ad are terrified of Mother Nature, because our best people are terrified too.

The truth of it is, a truth Gregory Clark surely knows, is that nature is silent on those big questions about how we ought to live and organize our societies. Nature cares about one thing and that is fitness. Specifically, every living thing is driven by its gene’s desire to make it to the next round of the game. If your genes make even a partial copy of themselves in the form of your children, that is a win. How you make that happen is of no interest to your genes or Mother Nature.

That sounds terribly cold, which may be one reason our best people are terrified by that being an answer to those questions. If we live in a world that does not care if we live or die and does not care if we experience any joy in the middle, well, that is a terribly harsh reality we have made for ourselves. Maybe we would have been better off not knowing the reality of the human condition. Perhaps that is why anyone who ventures in that direction gets the Eye of Sauron on him.

Another reason for the fear of Mother Nature is that if she is indifferent to those big questions at the heart of human existence, it means the answers must lie elsewhere, which leads to the most terrifying answer of all. That is, we will not be able to gain the answers to the big moral questions through reason. Reason is, after all, based on nature and our observations of the natural world. At least we assume our reason is our evolved ability to comprehend the natural world.

If we cannot reason our way to the right answers to those moral questions, then it leaves three options that no one likes. One option is the supernatural. For most of human existence, the gods answered these questions. Often, the gods answered these questions through what we think of us culture and tradition. We do things a certain way because of this thing that happened with Zeus in the before times. Of course, reality could be an illusion, but that is a topic for another time.

Where that leaves us if we rule out nature as the answer to the big questions, and we never think about the illusion of reality business, are the two things that the liberal project has been trying to erase since the beginning. The main role of the liberal project has been to remove what the liberals called superstition, but which everyone else calls God, as a possible answer. Secondarily, the project has removed past practice as an answer for why we live as we live.

That is the great dilemma of the liberal project. Like a scientist who has spent his career chasing one idea only to find that his work is a dead end, the liberal project perpetuates itself through control of the institutions. The reason they say science progresses one funeral at a time is because the old guys in every field tend to be the biggest obstacle to the young guys with new ideas. In the case of liberalism, the defenders of the dream for an answer in pure reason terrorize those who think otherwise.

In the end, Mother Nature is indifferent to the demands of her creation for answers to the great questions and she is indifferent to whether we understand this. The answers to the great questions do not lie in nature or in a natural reason. The best we can do with our natural reason is improve the general material well-being of the human condition and maybe reduce the friction in human relations. Otherwise, our reason is not much use to us in this process.

If we wish to know the answers, then it means returning to that which we have abandoned, which is to ask the gods for the answer. If that is unsatisfactory, then we can pretend they answered through our traditions and customs. It is not that any of this will provide the universally corrects answer. It is that it will provide an answer and then maybe we can stop arguing about these questions. Then maybe Western man will be able to live in peace with the rest of the world.

What Lies Beneath

Posted on September 13, 2023 by thezman

Imagine a world of perfect candor where any hint of deception or inaccuracy is considered a blot on a man’s character. Everyone is raised to answer every question as honestly and forthrightly as possible. When the wife asks the husband if he thinks she is getting fat, he tells her he does think she is getting fat. Instead of getting upset and running into the bedroom, she excitedly hugs him because he was perfectly honest to her regarding an extremely sensitive matter.

This Vulcan-like candor would alter social relations. For example, stores would seek the best way to show their customers that they are completely honest. When they put something on sale, they would say it was because no one liked it or that they mistakenly bought too much of it and now need to unload it. The sign at the customer service window would read, “The customer is usually wrong.” Clerks would never say “have a good one” to customers.

That would still leave room for deception, so the stores would insist the product makers use candid labeling for their products. Frozen pizza boxes would read, “It tastes like cardboard, but it is cheap and easy to heat in the microwave.” Ingredient lists would include all of the ingredients, even the ones that cause cancer and those would be highlighted so the customer could see them. Organic food would not exist as everything about it is fake and therefore a lie.

Keep in mind that this imaginary world is not enforcing honestly at the point of a gun but as a matter of cultural preference. For some reason, the people in this society came to believe that only through perfect honesty can they have moral society. Therefore, the customs, folk legends and religious practices are all geared toward enforcing this idea that honesty is the highest virtue. Because honesty comes with status, everyone in public engages in honesty signaling contests.

It may seem ridiculous at first, but every human society selects for subjective qualities and against other qualities. The English prefer interesting over boring, which is why their popular figures appear eccentric and weird. Americans dislike phonies so popular figures try hard to look sincere, even when lying. There is no objective reason to prefer interesting over dull or sincere over inauthentic. Preferring these qualities is not more or less strange than celebrating candor.

Now think about this in the American context. Walk into any grocery store in America and the first thing you will experience is a lie. Typically, the produce section is located at the front of the store. There will be piles of fruits and vegetables labeled organic, but as a practical matter there is no such thing. Even if the fruit is grown according to the rules of the organic cult, the suppliers lose track of it long before it reaches the store, so there is no way to know what is organic and what is inorganic.

The stores know this. They put the best-looking stuff on the table marked organic and jack up the price to reinforce the lie. The suppliers know this, and the growers know it too, if you can get them to be honest about it. Everything about that organic tomato you bought is a lie, including your belief that it is better than the other tomato. You reward yourself by accepting the lie. You reward the store for lying to you and the store rewards its suppliers for lying to them. It is liars all the way down.

You have made it a few feet into the store, and you are deluged with lies. Venture further and you are swimming in an ocean of lies. The packaging of food is carefully designed to trick consumers. Tens of billions of dollars have gone into figuring out how to trick people into buying things. Of course, everything about the American diet is a lie perpetrated by the government at the behest of agribusiness. A man from Planet Candor would be horrified by the frozen food section.

Now, think about what sort of government would work best in a society run on the principle of complete candor. Monarchy could work, but it would be less than honest to claim that the son of the king is the most qualified to rule. A ruling council of the most honest citizens, maybe picked by the people, would probably be best as it would reward candor with the highest office. Candidates for seats on the council would prove their worth through campaigns of total honesty.

In fact, democracy would work well on Planet Candor. One of the foundational principles of democracy is that “all members must have equal and effective opportunities to learn about the consequences and alternatives of a proposal.” In a society where honesty is the highest virtue, the pressure to make sure everyone is as well informed as possible would lead to the most informed citizens. You would not have to worry about voter fraud or ballot stuffing on Planet Candor.

This is where you might think something is wrong. America is more democratic than any society in history and it is riddled with lies and corruption. The man holding the highest office recently claimed he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11. He repeatedly tells outlandish whoppers like this about himself. He is in office because he was the beneficiary of the most corrupt election in American history. That was made possible by a tsunami of lies from the mass media.

We seem to have a dilemma. On the one hand, the society of perfect honesty seems like the ideal place for democracy. On the other hand, democracy in practice results in a society ruled by the least honest people. When you think back to how our marketplace operates on a foundation of lies, it suggests any open market, whether it is for goods and service or ideas, becomes an elaborate game of liar’s poker. The marketplace rewards deception, so you end up with a lot of liars.

There are some possible solutions to this dilemma. One is that humans naturally want to live in a society controlled by liars. We have steadily become more democratic because mankind is slowly reaching its desired end. Alternatively, democracy and the marketplace turn even the most honest people into liars. If someone unleashed democracy on Planet Candor, it would quickly devolve into Planet Deception and come to resemble modern America.

There is a third option. Let us suppose that Planet Candor operates on perfect honesty because long ago a powerful force came to their planet and told them that unless they stamped out deception, their planet would be destroyed. Over time this belief in the risk of deception became a central part of who they are as a people and who each person is in relation to society. Put another way, honesty has become a religion for them, one that leads to salvation for themselves and their posterity.

Under such conditions, the acid of democracy and the free market would land on a society immune to its corrosive effects. All those snakes selling organic apples in the produce section of the grocery store would find no takers. Similarly, the fig leaf makers would have no reason to exist. After all, those they did manage to tempt would be selected out of the gene pool due to low status. In time, democracy would be a mechanism to select against the dishonest.

John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Outside of the various forms of authoritarianism, this is true of all governments. You cannot have an honest monarchy if the people over whom it rules are immoral. You cannot have a benevolent dictator if his people are liars and crooks. Morality is what ultimately controls the behavior of the people and what makes good governance possible.

That is the source of what plagues us today. The structures we inherited assume a specific moral foundation. When the ruling class that emerged with the American empire in the middle of the last century exiled the principles that made up that moral foundation, society was left without any protection from the temptations that lie in the marketplace for goods and ideas. The endless haggling over what we ought to do is only possible when there is no moral authority.

It also explains the panicked frenzy by the ruling class to conjure a moral framework to justify their behavior. The endless chanting about diversity is not intended to convince anyone that it is a strength, but to prevent anyone from asking who gave them the authority to fill our communities with strangers. The weird sexual fetishes they have unleashed are squid ink to prevent anyone from asking them upon what moral authority they are basing their sweeping claims about society.

The great critic of the Enlightenment, Joseph de Maistre, famously said, “Every country has the government it deserves.” Most people think this means the people deserve punishment for supporting unscrupulous politicians. What de Maistre meant here is the morality of society determines the type of government. In the case of France, stripping away the Catholic Church and the monarchy left French society without a moral foundation for government. Tyranny is what followed.

That is what we see happening in the West. The American empire jettisoned its moral foundations a century ago and the result is an empire that imposes cultural and spiritual chaos on the West. Democracy and the promiscuous lying that we see are just symptoms of the moral hollowness of the empire. The West is now ruled by moral nullities who demand to be treated as moral arbiters and in the end, they are left to operate as dictators holding power by force.

Our Democracy

Posted on September 11, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the creative problems in the making science fiction television, a post about the the Hitchcock film Rear Window, and the Sunday podcast which is a rant about fate women. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

The phrase “our democracy” has become a popular chant among the political class, always used as an excuse for anti-democratic action. You can be sure they will be saying it like they have a weird form of Tourette’s when the time comes to bar Donald Trump from the Republican nomination. “For the good of our democracy, we are going to remove the most popular guy from the Republican ballot.” In his place they will appoint someone with little or no support.

Of course, this will be met with howls from the usual corners. They will jump up and down demanding everyone notice the hypocrisy. What “hypocrisy” means in the sector we call the Right is “they are doing that which we would never have the courage to do even if allowed.” When the group we call the Left uses this word they mean, “We have found some minor contradiction in the criticism of us, so we are now free to ignore all of that and continue on with our work.”

This difference in language is important to understanding why the political class has become so fond of the phrase “our democracy.” For normal people, democracy is a process by which the policy preferences of the majority win out. In the crudest form it is understood to mean majority rule. For most people, however, it means a process by which the voters select representatives who then haggle and bargain over public policy in legislatures while following an established set of rules.

Democracy can have things that are not majority rule. The most obvious is the Electoral College system for electing a president. Normal people understand that this is not majority rule, but a way to protect the interests of small states against the interests of large states within the democratic process. The Senate is another example of something that is not democratic in the narrow sense, but part of the democratic framework of the system to maintain balance.

There used to be a time when students were taught that the American system was not a democracy but a representative republic. Democracy is mob rule and mobs can be very fickle, especially under stress. The system of checks and balances in the system is to slow the mob so that the will of the people can mature. The people may not get what they want initially, but after a series of elections the will of the people wills out and we get public policy that reflects the general consensus.

Obviously, that is nothing like reality. One part of becoming a dissident is accepting that this stuff you learned in school is at best naïve and at worst a lie. The two-party system that we have is designed to prevent ideas outside the consensus of the two parties from entering the political debate. It also works to prevent the ruling class from having to address the concerns of the people. The “democratic process” is a fig leaf used by the ruling elite to subdue any resistance to their rule.

Now, the right side of the political class does not think about this as those people are generally selected for their stupidity. Their job is to wave their pom-poms at the suburban peasants while the system celebrates itself. The left side, on the other hand, does think about it and they have a different definition of democracy. Their definition of democracy begins with what they think the will of the people ought to be if it is completely informed and allowed to blossom.

You see, you can only have democracy when the people are equally informed and allowed to fully participate in the debate. In order to do this, the citizens must fully understand their own interests and to do this they must come to understand their purpose within the framework of society. Until you can fully know yourself, you cannot fully participate in the democratic process. As a result, most people are tricked into voting against their interests or the interests of society.

One part of defending democracy is to prevent this from happening. The defenders of “our democracy” are always seeking to shape the public space so that the people can discover their true purpose and act on it through the process. This cannot happen if there are people out there spreading disinformation or misinformation, so one job of the democracy defenders is to root out the bad actors from the public square. You cannot have democracy if everyone is allowed to speak.

What is important here is that the defenders of democracy are not defending a process but the idea of the true will of the people. Since the process can be corrupted, it can result in undemocratic results, like the 2016 election. In a true democracy bad people like Trump and his voters do not exist, much less win elections. In order to defend democracy, the defenders of democracy were forced to use any means necessary, even undemocratic ones, to stop Donald Trump.

Now, the defenders of democracy assume certain things about the purpose of society, its natural end point, which means they assume certain things about the purpose of the people who will one day populate the fully flowered democracy. The most important foundational item is the assumption that once everyone is fully democratic and fully understands her purpose, everyone agrees on the purpose of society. This means politics withers away as there is nothing to debate.

Since the defenders of democracy understand all of this, the presence of people who oppose them means society is not democratic. The larger project requires that these people be removed by any means necessary. As long as these enemies of democracy are standing in the way of progress, the defenders of democracy have a right and an obligation to do what is required to defeat them. It turns out that you can only reach true democracy through authoritarian means.

That last bit is critical. The defenders of democracy assume that once the conditions for democracy are firmly and unquestionable in place, the people in the system will have no choice but to realize their true purpose as democratic people. At that magical point, politics collapses as all moral disputes are gone. There is no need for elections and the rule of law because everyone at all times agrees on everything. There is no coercion because there is no dissent from the moral order of democracy.

This is why there can be no compromise between the people who see democracy as a process and those who see it as a moral conclusion. The former group not only tolerates dissent but sees it as proof the system works. The latter group sees dissent as proof the system is failing. This contrast in moral visions makes it impossible for the two camps to coexist in the same society. If you want a democratic society, you can never tolerate people who want a democracy.

Fortune’s Wheel

Posted on September 7, 2023 by thezman

In August 1936, the Soviet Union held the first of a series of trials of former Bolsheviks who had been accused of various crimes against the state. The first group accused were Old Bolsheviks who had been allies of Stalin at one point. They had later sided with Trotsky and been stripped of their positions. By this point Trotsky was in exile and his supporters were all in various states of disfavor. One element of the first trial was the claim that the accused were still in contact with Trotsky.

At the time, the international Left was firmly in the Bolshevik camp, as this was the first successful radical government in the world. Whatever the doctrinal difference within the international radical camp, no one could deny that the Bolsheviks had managed to take power in a large important country. As a result, radicals found a way to justify what was happening to the accused. The cause was more important than any man, so no one dared criticize what was happening.

Even when it should have been clear that the trials had little to do with the alleged crimes, radicals around the world found a way to justify what was happening in the name of solidarity. “No enemies to the left” was never a real thing in radical politics, as left-wing politics has always been defined by endless schisms and disputes among rival factions but as the show trials progressed, it became a useful way to rally support in the face of criticism from outside radicalism.

What followed, of course, was more show trials of Old Bolsheviks, who were found guilty and then shot. A few escaped death and were sent to labor camps where they were expected to die. The show trials were then followed by waves of arrests, executions, and purges of the party. No one knows for sure how many died in Stalin’s purges, but the general consensus is between seven hundred thousand and one million people were killed in the process.

There are a lot of lessons about the nature of human society to be drawn from the Bolsheviks and especially Stalin. Radicalism since the French Revolution has always been about a radical break from the past, but in every case, it turns out be a horrific replay of the worst of mankind’s past. Stalin was the extreme example of the worst Tsar, an industrial strength version of Ivan IV, rather than the leader of a revolutionary movement to usher in a radical new form of society.

Another lesson of the purges was that there is never any appeal to the humanity and compassion of the radicals. Even when Stalin purged the beloved Nikolai Bukharin, radicals found a way to justify it. Stalin’s decision to murder his old friend and most loyal Bolshevik should have been viewed as a monstrous crime that could only be committed by a monster, instead radicals found a way to explain it away. Again, the cause is bigger than any one man or group of men.

Of course, the greatest lesson of all is that when the old rules break down or are willfully destroyed, what is left is a lawless world. Once the law collapses, everyone becomes an outlaw by definition. In a world where everyone lives outside the law, the people who survive and thrive are always the most cunning and ruthless. In the case of the Bolsheviks, Stalin was not the smartest or the most persuasive, but he was the most cunning and ruthless, so he came out on top.

All of this would be ancient history if not for what we see happening in Washington with the show trials being run by the ruling junta. Calling the people in charge the Biden administration is no longer sensible as it is clear that Biden is deep in the throes of dementia and barely able to do basic things. The government is now run by a collection of people who operate in the shadows. They control things through the people appointed to various posts in the administration.

Much like Stalin’s trials, the process has moved from arresting minor figures on trumped up charges to now arresting the former president. It is not inconceivable to think they may exile Trump in order to keep him off the ballot. Of course, the viciousness and cruelty of the show trials grows worse with every turn. A judge just sentenced the leaders of the Proud Boys to decades in prison. The judge used the sentencing hearings as a chance to denounce the enemies of the party.

That is another feature of the Stalin trials that bears attention. In every one of the show trials, the judges were outlandish supporters of the party and the charges brought against the accused. These were men picked because of their uncertain status within the party, particularly with regards to Stalin. The judges in the current show trials seem to feel the same pressure, so they are making sure the cases proceed exactly as the party expects them to proceed.

Of course, the radicals in the cheering sections are following the same script as the radicals who cheered the show trials. The same people who cry salty tears over a black criminal getting shot in the commission of a crime are cheering the harsh penalties handed down to grandmothers in these show trials. The cause is more important than the rule of law and their thirst for the blood of their enemies trumps whatever sense of justice that ever existed in their souls.

The most important lesson of the Stalin years is that the terror that Stalin inflicted ended when Stalin’s life ended. At no point was he talked out of murdering people. He never had second thoughts or pangs of guilt. After his death, a letter from his old friend Bukharin was found in which Bukharin appealed to Stalin as a friend. Stalin kept it in his desk so he could read it from time to time, presumably so he could remember how he outmaneuvered even his closest friends.

Tyranny ends when the tyrant and his supporters end. That last part is the most important part of the process. When Stalin died his supporters were then purged and sidelined, with some ending up in the camps. The party leadership went through a de-Stalinization phase. The reason is the tyrant is always a symptom. It is his supporters in the cheering section who are the ultimate cause. It is only when you remove the fanatics and psychopaths that normalcy can return.

During the Napoleonic Wars, there was a British officer named Sir William Sidney Smith who was particularly good at vexing Napoleon in battle. Eventually, the French captured him and Napoleon had him put in a Paris prison. Smith was able to escape with the help of royalist enemies of Napoleon. In the prison was found a shingle on which he had written a letter. In the letter Smith quoted a passage from Rousseau that should be inspiration for all political prisoners

“Fortune’s wheel makes strange revolutions, it must be confessed; but for the term revolution to be applicable, the turn of the wheel must be complete. You are today as high as you can be. Very well. I envy not your good fortune, for mine is better still. I am as low in the career of ambition as a man can well descend; so that, let this capricious dame, fortune, turn her wheel ever so little–I must necessarily mount, for the same reason you must descend.”

The men and women rotting in dungeons at the hands of the regime are in the very condition of Sir William Sidney Smith. They are in prison because they vex the regime, not because they are outlaws. In a general sense, all of us are in the same condition, just free to talk around until another example is needed. Like Sir William Sidney Smith, fortunes wheel will turn, and we will rise the regime shall fall. Those who cheered the loudest for the show trials will be remembered the most.

The Spirit Of The Law

Posted on September 6, 2023 by thezman

In the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble is told by the court that the law assumes his wife acts under his direction. Mr. Bumble responds with, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass – a idiot”. The ass in this case is the donkey, an animal known for its obstinance. Over time the expression has been used to point out that the letter of the law can not only contradict the spirit of the law, but the law itself can contradict common sense and objective reality.

The more important point here though is that the law is an effort to formalize the commonly held moral code, a set of rules that determine what members of a society ought to do and ought not to do. It is not the moral code itself, but an effort to write it down on paper so it is clear to everyone. Fundamental to most ethical systems is the assertion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You need to know the rules, which is why they are written down so that you can know them.

Despite the law seeming to be an ass, there is a logic to the law. That logic, like all systems, starts from some foundational items. These are the things that everyone in the law assumed to be true. For example, the Bill of Rights is supposed to be a list of starting points for understanding the limits of government. These are not supposed to be up for debate. As far as the law is supposed to be concerned, these are settled truths that cannot be challenged or violated.

This gets to an important point. Every system of oughts, the list of things you ought to do and the things you ought not do, begins with a set of eternal truths that rest on a recognized authority. Christians are free to eat pork because they do not recognize the moral authority of the Muslims and Jews. The prohibition against eating pork rests on the moral authority of those two religions. It is not an objective truth, but a subjective one that works only when you accept it.

The law is a system of oughts and therefore assumes an authority and that authority is supposed to be the Constitution but also tradition as expressed through precedent or the accumulation of court decisions. The Constitution is the starting point for what we all agree is the system of oughts. Precedent is the accumulated decisions over time on the things that were not expressly covered in the Constitution. Combined this makes up the system of oughts that define the morality of our society.

That last bit is what is often missed. Once something is formally put on the list of things you ought not do, it quickly becomes part of the informal list of taboos. The reason for this is that we naturally assume that in a democratic society the law reflects not only the general will but general morality. If the law says it is not allowed, it must mean that it is outside of that which is morally acceptable. In other words, once the court makes it against the law, it quickly becomes immoral.

An obvious example of this in action is homosexual marriage. Up until a few years ago people understood that marriage was about creating children. Since nature dictates how this is done, marriage must be one man and one woman. Then one day some people decided that the laws of nature are up for debate. Two men, it was argued, could be married, despite the biological impossibility of it. This group remained a ridiculous minority until they were able to get the courts to side with them.

In the blink of an eye, the issue of homosexual marriage went from absurd poke in the eye of Mother Nature to settled moral principle. Conservatives who opposed the idea then suddenly defended it. Even social conservatives have dropped their public opposition to homosexual marriage. You can see the change in moral attitudes in the polling on the issue. This absurd mockery of the laws of nature became part of the accepted moral code with the stroke of a judge’s pen.

Another example is the Brown decision. Central to the jihad against white people in this age are the novel moral principles invented by the court. In fact, the court not only created two new moral claims, but made those the controlling principles, superseding even those items written in the Constitution itself. As a result, the constitutional order went from a system of limits on government power to a system of demands on the white population of the country.

The same process is happening with the Bostock decision. In this case a majority of the justices agreed that discriminating against men pretending to be women so they can beat up girls on the soccer field is a form of sexual discrimination and therefore violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Harvard professor Adrian Vermeule points out, this is a ridiculous claim on its face, but it also opens the door for adding yet another novel principle to the legal order.

As we have seen with other novelties from the court, it will not be long before this one sinks into the moral fabric of society. If you do not want your daughters pulverized by burly men in sundresses on the ball field, you will be shunned from polite society or maybe even suffer legal persecution. The fact that the Bostock decision was written by a so-called conservative judge, one anointed by the allegedly conservative Federalist Society and appointed by Trump is critical.

We used to worry about putting Catholics on the bench because it was assumed they would operate from Catholic morality, rather than the morality of high church Protestantism that informed the political order. It was assumed that judges were like all men, and they would operate from within a moral framework, formally expressed through organized religion until recent times. Catholics had Catholic morality, while Episcopalians had Anglican morality.

In other words, the text of the Constitution and the traditions and precedents that informed it were based on a moral framework that existed outside of it. The political system was founded by and for people who assumed a moral order based in high church Protestantism. It did not prohibit men dressed as women from beating up girls on the ball fields because no Christian people would ever conceive of such a thing, much less tolerate advocacy for it.

Once that morale framework was removed from the system, the Constitutional order was left without a moral foundation. It no longer had moral authority on which to rest the list of things members of society ought to do and ought not do. The political system was left to conjure one to replace it. The Brown decision and now Bostock rest on the moral authority of the new religion that has evolved since the middle of the last century, which promises salvation through universal liberation.

In the end, the law is a formalization of the moral code of a society. That moral code reflects the identity of the people who rule society. The foundation of which is either something outside of the human condition like the gods or the collective identity of the people who control society. Once the American ruling class abandoned Christianity as the moral foundation, it eventually settled on the collective identity of the ruling elite that emerged in the middle of the last century.

The trouble is, that ruling elite cannot settle on an exclusive identity as it is a hodgepodge of people from various tribes. Exclusivity therefore runs counter to their shared reality, so their new identity is the Open Society. It is a polite fiction but all ethical codes contain polite fictions. The new ruling elite is every bit as exclusive and discriminating as any ruling elite, it is just that they assume their calling is to usher in the Open Society, a world of free of discrimination and prejudice.

The Star Chamber Phase

Posted on August 30, 2023 by thezman

Note #1: If you are thinking the kids need something to wear to school that celebrates our diversity, consider buy one of these new shirts. Nothing tells the world how hard you celebrate our diversity like a Lagos Trading Company t-shirt.

Note #2: I was invited on to chat with Peter Quinones about the Republican debate, the courage of Trump, the Tucker interview and many other things. For those missing the sound of me droning on each Friday, you can get your fix here.

The term “star chamber” has fallen out of use over the last few decades, but it was a common term used by the American Left in the 20th century. They would use it when arguing that the courts were acting arbitrarily. Other times they would use it in the context of public opinion when one of their guys was in trouble. The point was that the media was being unfair to their guy. Star chambers were bad so anything with those words associated with it must be bad too.

The Star Chamber was a real thing. It was an English court setup in the 15th century to oversee cases involving socially and political important people. This court was staffed with advisors to the king. This way the judges would not be intimidated by the status of the accused. No one knows for sure how it got the name “star chamber” but the most popular theory says it comes from the decorations. The ceiling was painted with gold stars on a blue background.

Of course, like all government power, it was soon abused by the people wielding it to first attack their enemies in court and then to suppress dissent. The main reason it was subverted into an instrument of oppression is it lacked due process. There was no appealing the decisions of the court and since it operated by its own rules, there could be no appeal to a fixed set of rules. This allowed the king to use the system to persecute his enemies and stamp out dissent.

It is why up until the last few decades, the American court system was based on a fixed set of rules that governed all courts. This was ensured by an appeals system that ended with the Supreme Court. Forgotten today, the primary purpose of the Supreme Court was to make sure the court system followed the rules, the primary source of which is the Constitution itself. The courts being open to the public was an additional check on abuse of the legal system by the powerful.

The reason “star chamber” has fallen out of fashion in America is the Left has seized control of the institutions, including the centers of cultural production. They no longer look at the abuse of power as a problem because they have all the power so by definition all uses of power are justified. Note that their objections to the secret courts created after 9/11 were ceremonial and halfhearted. In reality they welcomed this new tool they could use in pursuit of their agenda.

Note also that the only thing we know about these secret courts is they were used against Donald Trump in the 2016 election. To date no one has produced an example of how these courts prevented terrorism. The documented abuses of these secret courts by the FBI have gone unaddressed. Because the courts are secret, we have no idea what goes on inside them, so there is no way to know they are not being used against dissidents in the same way they were used against Trump.

Putting that aside, the court system we can see is also going through a transformation toward the Star Chamber model. Again, Trump provides some examples. In his Florida case the court has warned him about making public statements. There is the threat of a gag order hanging over him. In Washington, Jack Smith has asked the court for what amounts to a gag order on Trump. In Georgia, Trump cancelled a press conference about the case for fear of retribution from the court.

Since we get our information about court proceedings from the media and the media is now an agent of the state, it is not hard to see why proscribed people would want to have their say outside the courthouse. The only chance for fairness in the courtroom now is for the accused to make his appeals outside the courthouse. Naturally, the courts now wish to stifle such conduct. If they can gag the accused, he cannot shine a light on the abuses inside the court through appeals to the public.

This is not just a phenomenon in high profile political cases. Increasingly, local judges and prosecutors are doing the same thing. Here is a case of a famous college football player accused of heinous crimes. If you read between the lines, he was framed by the cops but was forced to remain quiet in order to get out of the case. He comes from money and his father is famous, but none of that matters in a court system that is increasingly the tool of arbitrary state power.

The difference between the rule of law and rule by men is that the former has a clear and precises set of rules open to the public, while the latter is based on the momentary whims of the people who wield power. The proliferation of laws along with a proliferation of ways to interpret the laws has made everything illegal. No one can now list all of the federal crimes on the books. As a result, most people are breaking the law every day of their life without knowing it.

The reason this matters is one of the predicates for social upheaval, like civil wars and revolutions, is the collapse of trust in the law. The Star Chamber system, for example, ended with the English Civil War. The American Revolution was, in part, a response to the collapse of legal authority. The American Civil War was due, in part, to a collapse in trust by both sides in the courts fairly dealing with the slavery issue. The legal system no longer provided a solution to disputes.

When no one trusts the law or the legal system, no one has a reason to obey the rules, much less respect the system that creates them. Put another way, when everyone is in violation of the law, then everyone is motivated to live outside the law. This is the fundamental definition of the outlaw. He is an outlaw because he rejects the system of laws and therefore exists outside the law. This is also the starting place for every revolutionary and revolutionary movement.

In the end, the test of a legal system is the test of a society. That is, how much protection does it provide to those with the least power. A society that provides only protection to the powerful is a tyranny. A legal system that provides no protection to those without power from those with power is also a tyranny. The Star Chamber became the symbol of tyrannical rule because it was the instrument of tyranny, just as our legal system is today.

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Politics